My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN071691
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN071691
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:43:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
318 <br /> <br /> not within the purview of the Ridgelands Committee majority or the ' <br /> entire Committee. She stated that the majority's refusal to allow <br /> consideration of the plan's impacts on Pleasanton is outrageous and <br /> requested Council to have the Committee complete its tasks for the <br /> best interest of Pleasanton. She asked the City Attorney if the <br /> Committee had th~ option to accept or reject the scope of work and <br /> whether the Council may now modify that scope of work by accepting <br /> the majority plan as it is. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that Measure M sets forth the terms of the <br /> Committee's scope of work, which was to study and recommend to the <br /> City Council preferred land uses, infrastructure needs, lands to be <br /> preserved in open space, and financing methods for the Ridgelands. <br /> He continued that the Council will look at the report and decide <br /> whether or not the Committee fulfilled that responsibility. And if <br /> the Council determines that this was not the case, the matter would <br /> be returned to the Committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Judith Bettencourt, 2918 Kilkare Road in Sunol, a member <br /> of the Residential Subcommittee, stated that the Committee, as a <br /> whole, did ~ot address the issue of whether development was <br /> appropriate for the Ridgelands, as promised to the members. She <br /> indicated that the process was changed as the meetings progressed <br /> from consensus to majority voting. She stated that because some <br /> issues were scheduled for discussion at the end of the sessions and <br /> were never discussed, these were never recorded. She requested <br /> Council to reconvene the Committee because the Final Report is not <br /> accurate and that the process was not given a fair chance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked Ms. Bettencourt and the earlier speakers if <br /> they felt that given the majority/minority positions in the <br /> Committee, a consensus could be reached if the Committee were <br /> reconvened. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettencourt replied that the process was lost somewhere <br /> along the way and that at one point, there was no effort to reach <br /> consensuS. <br /> <br /> Ms. Pat Stillman, a resident of Sunol, stated that the process <br /> that was developed was exploited to look like democratic procedures <br /> were used. She pointed out that as many as five members of a <br /> property owner's family and real estate developers would be in one <br /> Subcommittee and that financial liability or feasibility were never <br /> discussed. <br /> <br /> - 22 - <br /> 7-16-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.